Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2005-11-14 · SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice

14,835 words·~67 min read·/register/2005/11/14/05-22535·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52740; File No. SR-Amex-2005-109] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Revising the Implementation Date for the ANTE System and Increased Floor Broker Functionality in the ANTE System November 4, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 27, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by Amex.
Amex has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Amex proposes to amend
(1)Rule 900—ANTE to provide a revised date for the completion of the implementation of the ANTE System to all option classes; and
(2)Rule 935—ANTE, Commentary .01 to establish a revised date for increased floor broker functionality in the ANTE System. The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at Amex's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Revised Implementation Date—Rule 900—ANTE On May 20, 2004, the Commission approved the Amex's proposal to implement a new options trading platform known as the Amex New Trading Environment (“ANTE”). On May 25, 2004, the Amex began rolling out the ANTE System on its trading floor on a specialist's post-by-specialist's post basis. At that time it was anticipated the roll-out would be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2005. The implementation date for the full roll-out of the ANTE System was extended to October 31, 2005. 5 The Amex has rolled out the ANTE System to all its option classes except two—the Nasdaq 100 Index (“NDX”) and the Mini Nasdaq Index (“MNX”). There are specific reasons why these products have not been rolled out on the ANTE System. The specialist in these products is concerned that the theoretical price calculator provided by the ANTE System may not accurately price the options on these indexes. The specialist is currently waiting for his own theoretical index price calculator, which has been installed and is currently being tested, to successfully calculate prices for these indexes and the options. It is expected that the MNX/NDX specialist will have its proprietary calculator in place by November 30, 2005. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52504 (September 23, 2005) 70 FR 57632 (October 3, 2005). The Amex is now proposing to further revise its implementation schedule to provide that the remaining two option classes will be on the ANTE System by November 30, 2005. Maintaining two systems for the trading of options—the legacy system (XTOPS, AODB and Auto-Ex) and ANTE—is costly. As a result the Exchange is working diligently to have all option classes on the ANTE System by November 30, 2005 so that it can retire its legacy systems. Increased Floor Broker Functionality—Rule 935—ANTE Amex Rule 935—ANTE
(b)provides for the post trade allocation of contracts executed as the result of the submission of orders to trade with orders in the ANTE Central Book. If more than one ANTE Participant 6 and/or a floor broker representing a customer order submits an order to trade with an order in the ANTE Central book within a period not to exceed five seconds after the initial ANTE Participant has submitted its order, all those ANTE Participants and the floor broker's customer will be entitled to participate in the allocation of any executed contracts. The ANTE System is currently unable to provide the functionality necessary for floor brokers representing customer orders in the trading crowd to directly participate in the post trade allocation of orders taken off the Central Book. Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 935—ANTE provides a temporary methodology for the specialist to disengage the post trade allocation system in a specific series, which allows the floor broker to alert the specialist within the five second timeframe whenever his customer wants to participate in post trade allocation, and allows the specialist to provide for the customer's participation in post trade allocation when appropriate. The Commission approved the procedures set forth in Commentary .01 as a “reasonable, temporary solution” 7 . Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 935—ANTE also provides that the ANTE System will give floor brokers greater functionality accessing the Central Book on March 31, 2005, or such other date as established by the Exchange and submitted to the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act. The Exchange subsequently established October 31, 2005, as the date the increased functionality would be available in the ANTE System. Due to a delay in the roll out of the increased floor broker functionality, the Exchange now proposes to establish November 30, 2005, as the date set forth in Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 935—ANTE for such increased functionality. 6 Amex Rule 900—ANTE (b)(45) defines an ANTE Participant as either the specialist and/or registered options trader(s) assigned to trade a specific options class on the ANTE System. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49747 (May 20, 2004) 69 FR 30344 (May 27, 2004). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 8 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is designed to prohibit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 10 and subparagraph (f)(6) thereunder. 11 Amex represents that the proposed rule change:
(1)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)does not become operative for thirty days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 12 normally does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date of filing. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), and designate the proposed rule change to become operative upon filing. 12 *Id.* The Commission hereby grants the request. 13 The Commission notes that Amex has represented that the theoretical price calculators for the final two options classes are not installed and/or functioning properly and that it has not yet implemented the functionality for floor brokers customer orders. The Commission believes that extending the deadline for implementing Amex Rules 900—ANTE and 935—ANTE by a month should afford Amex the time needed to install and test the theoretical price calculators and to implement the floor broker customer order functionality. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as effective and operative immediately. 13 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Amex-2005-109 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-109. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-109 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6250 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52736; File No. SR-Amex-2005-111] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to an Extension of the Suspension of Transaction Charges for Specialist Orders in the Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock®
(QQQQ)November 4, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 31, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by Amex. Amex has designated the proposed rule change as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Equity and Exchange Traded Funds and Trust Issued Receipts Fee Schedules (the “Amex Fee Schedules”) to extend the suspension of transaction charges for specialist orders in connection with the trading of the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock® (Symbol: QQQQ) from November 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at Amex's principal office, and from the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to extend the suspension of transaction charges for specialist orders in QQQQ from November 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. The current suspension of specialist transaction charges in QQQQ will otherwise terminate on October 31, 2005. 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52460 (September 16, 2005), 70 FR 55639 (September 22, 2005) (proposal previously extending this specialist transaction fee waiver). Specialist orders in QQQQ executed on the Exchange currently are charged $0.0037 per share ($0.37 per 100 shares), capped at $300 per trade (81,081 shares). Effective December 1, 2004, the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock® formerly “QQQ” transferred its listing from Amex to The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc (“Nasdaq”). It now trades on Nasdaq under the symbol QQQQ. After the transfer, Amex began trading QQQQ pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The Exchange submits that a suspension of transaction fees for specialist orders in connection with QQQQ is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act. 6 Specifically, the Exchange believes that extending the suspension of transaction charges for QQQQ specialist orders is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Exchange members. The fact that specialists have greater obligations than other members and are also subject to other Exchange fees, in addition to transaction fees, supports this proposal to temporarily extend the fee suspension. 6 Section 6(b)(4) states that the rules of a national securities exchange must provide for “the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.” *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52460 (September 16, 2005), 70 FR 55639 (September 22, 2005); 52267 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 49338 (August 23, 2005); and 52268 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 49336 (August 23, 2005) (proposals introducing and extending this specialist transaction fee waiver). The Exchange notes that specialists are also subject to a variety of Exchange fees other than transaction charges, such as a floor clerk fee, a floor facility fee, a post fee, and registration fee. 7 In addition, specialists and other floor members of the Exchange are subject to technology and membership fees. 8 Certain market participants, such as customers, non-member broker-dealers and market-makers, and member broker-dealers are not subject to the majority of these fees. In addition, specialist units, unlike registered traders and other floor members, must be sufficiently staffed and provide adequate technology resources in order to handle the volume of orders (especially in QQQQ) that are sent to the specialist post at the Exchange. These operational costs that are incurred by a specialist further support the Exchange proposal to extend the suspension of QQQQ transaction fees on specialist orders. 7 The floor clerk, floor facility, post, and registration fees on an annual basis are $900, $2,400, $1,000, and $800, respectively. 8 A technology fee of $3,000 per year is assessed on all specialists and other floor participants at the Exchange. Annual membership dues of $1,500 must be paid by all members while annual membership fees are payable depending on the type of membership and circumstances. Non-members are not subject to these fees. Specialists have certain obligations required by Exchange rules as well as the Act that do not exist for other market participants. For example, a specialist pursuant to Amex Rule 170 is required to maintain a fair and orderly market in his or her assigned securities. Other members of the Exchange as well as non-member market participants do not have this obligation. As a result, the Exchange believes that an extension of the transaction charge fee waiver for specialist orders in QQQQ is reasonable and equitable. The Exchange is amending the Amex Fee Schedules to indicate that transaction charges for specialist orders in connection with QQQQ executed on the Exchange will be further suspended from November 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. 2. Statutory Basis Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 10 in particular in that it is intended to assure the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Amex believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder 12 because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Amex-2005-111 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-111. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-111 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6251 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52739; File No. SR-CBOE-2004-53] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Partial Amendment No. 1 Relating to Margin Requirements for Complex Options Spreads November 4, 2005. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on July 30, 2004, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change and on August 23, 2005, filed a partial amendment to its proposed rule change 3 as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 SR-CBOE-2004-53: Amendment No. 1. CBOE, in coordination with the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”), filed the partial amendment to conform the complex options spreads strategies to which its rule amendments apply to those of the NYSE. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE is proposing to incorporate margin requirements that are currently set forth in a Regulatory Circular into the Exchange's rules. The margin requirements pertain to complex option spreads. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, CBOE and at the Commission. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The CBOE is proposing to incorporate the provisions of a Regulatory Circular (RG03-066— *Margin Requirements for Certain Complex Spreads* , dated August 13, 2003) into the Exchange's margin rules (Chapter 12). CBOE Regulatory Circular RG03-066 presents an interpretation of current margin requirements that allows the Exchange to derive, and put into effect, margin requirements for certain complex option spreads. This Regulatory Circular, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, was approved by the Commission on a one-year pilot basis. 4 This Regulatory Circular has been reissued as RG04-90 (dated August 16, 2004) and RG05-37 (dated April 6, 2005) pursuant to extensions of the pilot period granted by the Commission. 5 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48306 (Aug. 8, 2003), 68 FR 48974 (Aug. 15, 2003) (approving SR-CBOE-2003-24). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50164 (Aug. 6, 2004), 69 FR 50405 (Aug. 16, 2004) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51407 (Mar. 22, 2005), 70 FR 15669 (Mar. 28, 2005). As shown in Exhibit B, the Exchange is proposing to add definitions in Rule 12.3(a) of a “long condor spread,” “short iron butterfly spread” and “short iron condor spread.” These definitions cover six of the seven strategies identified in RG03-066. Each definition covers two strategies identified in RG03-066 because each definition provides for a base strategy, in which all options expire at the same time, and a calendar spread strategy, in which a long option may expire after the other options expire concurrently. The Exchange is proposing a revision to its current definition of a butterfly spread to provide for the remaining strategy, a calendar spread version of the long butterfly spread (configuration number three in RG03-066). These revisions consist of
(1)splitting the current butterfly spread definition into two definitions, one for the long butterfly spread and one for the short butterfly spread,
(2)fashioning the two definitions so that they are consistent with the style and format of the new definitions referred to in the prior paragraph, and
(3)providing for a calendar spread version in the long butterfly spread definition. In Regulatory Circular RG03-066, call options were utilized to construct three of the seven strategy examples. Each of these three strategies has a parallel application with put options. For brevity, the put option versions were not specifically identified in the Regulatory Circular, but the Regulatory Circular was intended to apply to the put option counterpart of each of the strategies demonstrated with call options. Both the put and call option versions are provided for in the newly proposed rule definitions. The remaining four complex spread strategies originally identified in the Regulatory Circular involved both call options and put options (that is, “iron” strategies). Each of these four strategies has a reciprocal configuration (that is, the call options can precede the put options in ascending sequence of exercise prices). However, there is no need to address the reciprocal variations because there is no benefit from a margin requirement standpoint of including them in the iron strategy definitions. As indicated in the Regulatory Circular and discussed in the Exchange's original filing of the Regulatory Circular with the Commission, 6 each of the complex spreads identified in the proposed rule can be derived by combining and netting two or more option spreads (that is, the butterfly spread, the box spread and the time spread) that are already identified in the margin rules and ascribed a margin requirement. Furthermore, the sum of the margin required on the basic option spreads that can be combined and netted to form a complex spread covers the maximum risk of the complex spread and, as in the Regulatory Circular, is the margin requirement specified in the proposed rules. Each of the subject complex spread strategies has a known and limited risk when configured as specified in the proposed definitions. As proposed, current Rule 12.3(c)(5)(C)(6) is revised to provide a margin requirement for each of the long condor spread, short iron butterfly spread and short iron condor spread. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48115 (July 1, 2003), 68 FR 41027 (July 9, 2003). Consistent with the Regulatory Circular, nothing in the proposed rule would prevent the subject complex spreads from being established outright. Thus, it would not be required that the applicable combination of individual option strategies first be established and netted. Like the Regulatory Circular, the proposed rule prohibits European style options in the case of the calendar version of a complex spread, and requires that the interval between each option series be equal in the case of all complex spread strategies. However, unlike the Regulatory Circular, the proposed rules would not limit complex spreads to a margin account. The Exchange is additionally proposing a revision to Rule 12.3(e)— *Customer Cash Account—Spreads,* that adds the long condor spread, short iron butterfly spread and short iron condor spread as strategies permitted to be established and carried in a cash account, provided they are composed of cash-settled, European style options that all expire at the same time. The Exchange has received no negative comments concerning Regulatory Circular RG03-66 since it has been issued. The Exchange is not aware of any negative consequences as a result of applying the margin requirements permitted by Regulatory Circular RG03-66. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed margin requirements cover the maximum risk involved, providing sufficient safety and soundness for the clearing firm and the market overall. Additionally, the proposed rule would allow investors to more efficiently implement the subject complex spreads. As such, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 8 of the Act, in that it is designed to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml)* ; or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2004-53 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2004-53. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml)* . Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2004-53 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Exhibit A Regulatory Circular RG03-66 To: Member Organizations From: Division of Regulatory Services Date: August 13, 2003 Subject: Margin Requirements for Certain Complex Spreads Exchange Contacts: James Adams
(312)786-7718, Richard Lewandowski
(312)786-7183 Key Points • Certain complex option spreads (specified below) are the equivalent of combining two or more spreads that are currently recognized in the margin rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”). • Because these complex spreads can be shown to equate to aggregations of two or more currently recognized spreads, current margin rules are deemed to provide a margin requirement for each complex spread in that the rules provide a margin requirement for each spread in the equivalent aggregation. • Member organizations may require margin for these complex spreads of not less than the sum of the margin required on each spread in the equivalent aggregation. • The margin requirements set forth in this Regulatory Circular will be in effect as a pilot until August 8, 2004. Discussion It is known that certain complex spread configurations are the net result of combining two or more spread strategies that are currently recognized in the Exchange's margin rules. Specific complex spread configurations are listed below, along with the currently recognized spreads to which they can be traced. The expiration months, exercise prices, interval between exercise prices, and option premiums used in each configuration are for illustration only. However, as illustrated, the expiration months and sequence of the exercise prices must fit the same pattern, and the intervals between the exercise prices must be equal. Note that netting of contracts in option series common to each of the currently recognized spreads in an aggregation reduces it to the complex spread. BILLING CODE 8010-01-P EN14NO05.000 As illustrated above, the complex spread configurations equate to aggregations of currently recognized spreads. Therefore, for complex spreads fitting the above configurations, whether established outright or through netting, member firms must require initial and maintenance margin of not less than the sum of the margin required on each of the currently recognized spreads in the applicable aggregation subject to the following limitations: • The complex spread must be carried in a margin account, • European style options are not permitted for the configurations involving time spreads (IV through VII), • The intervals between exercise prices must be equal, and • Each complex spread must comprise four option series, except for Configuration IV, which must comprise three option series. Summing the margin required on each currently recognized spread in each of the applicable aggregations renders a margin requirement for the subject complex spread configurations as follows: Configuration Margin requirement I Pay for the net debit in full. II Exercise price interval (aggregate), net credit may be applied. III Exercise price interval (aggregate), net credit may be applied. IV Pay for the net debit in full. V Pay for the net debit in full. VI Exercise price interval (aggregate), net credit may be applied. VII Exercise price interval (aggregate), net credit may be applied. Using Configuration III as an example, the margin requirement and SMA debit or margin call would be as follows: EN14NO05.001 Margin Calculation: $5.00 × 1 contract × 100 shares = $500.00 Margin Requirement: $500.00 SMA Debit or Margin Call: $500.00−$200.00 = $300.00 Explanation: The initial and maintenance margin requirement is the exercise price interval (aggregate). Establishing this complex spread results in a net credit of $200.00 that may be applied to the margin requirement. As shown in the table below, the same margin requirement, and SMA debit or margin call, would result by taking the sum of the margin required on each spread in the equivalent aggregation. Net dr or cr Margin req. Deposit Long Butterfly $200 dr 0 $200 Long Butterfly $100 dr 0 100 Short Box #1 $500 cr $500 0 Total $200 cr 500 300 The margin requirements set forth in this Regulatory Circular will be in effect as a pilot until August 8, 2004. Questions regarding margin requirements should be directed to James Adams at
(312)786-7718 or Richard Lewandowski at
(312)786-7183. Exhibit B (additions: italicized, deletions:[bracketed]) CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC. CHAPTER XII Margins Rule 12.3. Margin Requirements 12.3
(a)Definitions. For purposes of this Rule, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below.
(1)through (4)—No change
(5)*The term “long butterfly spread” means long put / two short puts / long put or long call / two short calls / long call where: the options are on the same underlying instrument, the long options are different option series, the short options are the same option series, the exercise prices of the positions are in ascending order, either all options expire at the same time or a long option expires after the other options expire concurrently, and the interval between exercise prices is equal. In the case of long butterfly spreads composed of cash-settled, European style index options, all options must expire at the same time.* [The term “butterfly spread” means an aggregation of positions in three series of either put or call options all having the same underlying component or index and time of expiration, and based on the same aggregate current underlying value, where the interval between the exercise price of each series is equal, which positions are structured as either
(A)a “long butterfly spread” in which two short options in the same series are offset by one long option with a higher exercise price and one long option with a lower exercise price or
(B)a “short butterfly spread” in which two long options in the same series offset one short option with a higher exercise price and one short option with a lower exercise price.] *(6) The term “short butterfly spread” means short put / two long puts / short put or short call / two long calls / short call where: the options are on the same underlying instrument, the short options are different option series, the long options are the same option series, the exercise prices of the positions are in ascending order, all options expire at the same time, and the interval between exercise prices is equal.* *(7) The term “long condor spread” means long put / short put / short put / long put or long call / short call / short call / long call where: the options are on the same underlying instrument, each option is a different option series, the exercise prices of the options are in ascending order, either all options expire at the same time or a long option expires after the other options expire concurrently, and the interval between exercise prices is equal. In the case of long condor spreads composed of cash-settled, European style index options, all options must expire at the same time.* *
(8)The term “short iron butterfly spread” means long put / short put / short call / long call where: the options are on the same underlying instrument, each option is a different option series, the exercise prices of the options are in ascending order, the short options have the same exercise price, either all options expire at the same time or a long option expires after the other options expire concurrently, and the interval between exercise prices is equal. In the case of short iron butterfly spreads composed of cash-settled, European style index options, all options must expire at the same time. * *(9) The term “short iron condor spread” means long put / short put / short call / long call where: the options are on the same underlying instrument, each option is a different option series, the exercise prices of the options are in ascending order, either all options expire at the same time or a long option expires after the other options expire concurrently, and the interval between exercise prices is equal. In the case of short iron condor spreads composed of cash-settled, European style index options, all options must expire at the same time.* [(6)] *(10)* The term “box spread” means an aggregation of positions in a long call option and short put option with the same exercise price (“buy side”) coupled with a long put option and short call option with the same exercise price (“sell side”) all of which have the same underlying component or index and time of expiration, and are based on the same aggregate current underlying value, and are structured as either:
(A)a “long box spread” in which the sell side exercise price exceeds the buy side exercise price or
(B)a “short box spread” in which the buy side exercise price exceeds the sell side exercise price. [(7)] *(11)* The term “underlying stock basket” means a group of securities which includes each of the component securities of the applicable index and which meets the following conditions
(i)the quantity of each stock in the basket is proportional to its representation in the index,
(ii)the total market value of the basket is equal to the underlying index value of the index options or warrants to be covered,
(iii)the securities in the basket cannot be used to cover more than the number of index options or warrants represented by that value and
(iv)the securities in the basket shall be unavailable to support any other option or warrant transaction in the account. [(8)] *(12)* The term “cash equivalent” is as defined in Section 220.2 of Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. [(9)] *(13)* The term “listed” for purposes of this Chapter 12 means a security traded on a registered national securities exchange or automated facility of a registered national securities association. [(10)] *(14)* The term “OTC margin bond” for purposes of this Chapter 12 means
(1)any debt securities not traded on a national securities exchange that meet all of the following requirements
(a)at the time of the original issue, a principal amount of not less than $25,000,000 of the issue was outstanding;
(b)the issue was registered under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the issuer either files periodic reports pursuant to the Act or is an insurance company under Section 12(g)(2)(G) of the Act; or
(c)at the time of the extension of credit the creditor has a reasonable basis for believing that the issuer is not in default on interest or principal payments; or
(2)any private pass-through securities (not guaranteed by a U.S. government agency) that meet all of the following requirements:
(a)An aggregate principal amount of not less than $25,000,000 was issued pursuant to a registration statement filed with the Commission; and
(b)current reports relating to the issue have been filed with the Commission; and
(c)at the time of the credit extension, the creditor has a reasonable basis for believing that mortgage interest, principal payments and other distributions are being passed through as required and that the servicing agent is meeting its material obligations under the terms of the offering. (b)—No change (c)(1) through (c)(5)(C)(5)—No change [6) Butterfly Spread. This subparagraph (c)(6)(C)(6) applies to a butterfly spread as defined in subparagraph (a)(5) of this Rule where all option positions are listed or guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer.
(1)In respect of a long butterfly spread as defined in subparagraph (a)(5) of this Rule, the net debit must be paid in full.
(2)In respect of a short butterfly spread as defined in subparagraph (a)(5) of this Rule, margin must be deposited and maintained equal to at least the amount of the aggregate difference between the two lowest exercise prices with respect to short butterfly spreads comprised of calls options or the aggregate difference between the two highest exercise prices with respect to short butterfly spreads comprised of put options. The net proceeds from the sale of short option components may be applied to the requirement.] *(6) Long Butterfly Spread or Long Condor Spread. This subparagraph (c)(5)(C)(6) applies to a long butterfly or condor spread as defined in subparagraphs (a)(5) and (a)(7), respectively, of this Rule where all option positions are listed or guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer. In respect of a long butterfly or long condor spread as defined in subparagraphs (a)(5) and (a)(7), respectively, of this Rule, the net debit must be paid in full.* *(7) Short Butterfly Spread, Short Iron Butterfly Spread or Short Iron Condor Spread. This subparagraph (c)(5)(C)(7) applies to a short butterfly, short iron butterfly or short iron condor spread as defined in subparagraphs (a)(6), (a)(8) and (a)(9), respectively, of this Rule where all option positions are listed or guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer. In respect of a short butterfly, short iron butterfly or short iron condor spread as defined in subparagraphs (a)(6), (a)(8) and (a)(9), respectively, of this Rule, margin must be deposited and maintained equal to at least the amount of the exercise price interval. The net proceeds from the sale of short option components may be applied to the requirement.* [(7)] *(8)* Box Spread. This subparagraph [(c)(6)(B)(7)] *(c)(5)(C)(8)* applies to box spreads as defined in subparagraph (a)[(6)] *(10)* of this Rule where all option positions are listed or guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer.
(1)In respect of a long box spread as defined in subparagraph (a)[(6)] *(10)* of this Rule, the net debit must be paid in full.
(2)In respect of a short box spread as defined in subparagraph (a)[(6)] *(10)* of this Rule, margin must be deposited and maintained equal to at least the amount of the aggregate difference between the exercise prices. The net proceeds from the sale of short option components may be applied to the requirement. [(8)] *(9)* Long Box Spread in European Style Options. In respect of a long box spread as defined in subparagraph (a)[(6)] *(10)* of this Rule, in which all component options have a European style exercise provision and are listed or guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer; margin must be deposited equal to at least 50% of the aggregate difference in the exercise prices. The net proceeds from the sale of short option components may be applied to the requirement. For margin purposes, the long box spread may be valued at an amount not to exceed 100% of the aggregate difference in the exercise prices. (d)—No change
(e)Customer Cash Account—Spreads. A European style cash-settled index option, stock index warrant or currency index warrant carried in a short position is deemed a covered position, and eligible for the cash account, provided a long position in a European style cash-settled index option, stock index warrant or currency warrant having the same underlying component or index that is based on the same aggregate current underlying value, is held in or purchased for the account on the same day provided: (1)—No change
(2)*Long* Butterfly Spreads, *Short Butterfly Spreads, Long Condor Spreads, Short Iron Butterfly Spreads or Short Iron Condor Spreads. The captioned spreads, as defined in subparagraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8) and (a)(9), respectively, of this Rule, are permitted in a cash account only if they are composed of cash settled, European style options and all options expire at the same time,* [Put or call options carried in a short position are deemed covered positions and eligible for the cash account provided the account contains long positions of the same type which in conjunction with the short options constitute a butterfly spread as defined in subparagraph (a)(5) of this Rule] and provided: [(A) all component options are European style,] [(B) all component options are cash settled,] [(C)] *(A)* the long options are held in, or purchased for the account on the same day, [(D)] *(B)* in respect of a long butterfly spread or long condor spread as defined in subparagraphs (a)(5) and (a)(7), respectively, of this Rule, the net debit is paid in full, [(E)] *(C)* in respect of a short butterfly spread, short iron butterfly spread or short iron condor spread as defined in subparagraphs (a)([5]6), (a)(8) and (a)(9), respectively, of this Rule, either there is held in the account at the time the positions are established or received into the account promptly thereafter:
(1)Cash or cash equivalents of not less than the amount of the *exercise price interval* [aggregate difference between the two lowest exercise prices with respect to short butterfly spreads comprised of call options or the aggregate difference between the two highest exercise prices with respect to short butterfly spreads comprised of put options], to which requirement the net proceeds from the sale of short option components may be applied, or
(2)An escrow agreement. The escrow agreement must certify that the bank holds for the account of the customer as security for the agreement
(1)cash,
(2)cash equivalents or
(3)a combination thereof having an aggregate market value at the time the positions are established of not less than the amount of the *exercise price interval* [aggregate difference between the two lowest exercise prices with respect to short butterfly spreads comprised of call options or the aggregate difference between the two highest exercise prices with respect to short butterfly spreads comprised of put options] and that the bank will promptly pay the member organization such amount in the event the account is assigned an exercise notice [on the call
(put)with the lowest (highest) exercise price]. [(F)] *(D)* all component options are listed or guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer. (3)—No change 12.3(f) through (k)—No change * * *Interpretations and Policies: .01-.19—No change [FR Doc. E5-6249 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52721; File No. SR-DTC-2005-14] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Compliance With Regulations Administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control November 2, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on September 9, 2005, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change and on October 25, 2005, amended the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Under the proposed rule change, DTC would revise its Deposit Service, Custody Service, and Withdrawals-By-Transfer Service procedures. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change Under the proposed rule changes, DTC would revise its Deposit Service, Custody Service, and Withdrawals-By-Transfer Service procedures. These changes are based upon guidance provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) to DTC. 1. Deposit Service In order to receive immediate credit in its securities account at DTC for a deposit of registered securities, a participant would be required to certify to DTC that it has compared the parties identified on the deposited certificate ( *e.g.* , the issuer, the party in whose name the deposited security is registered, and all assignees) against OFAC's list of targeted countries, Specially Designated Nationals, and other parties designated by OFAC (collectively referred to as the “OFAC list”) and that there were no matches identified by such comparison. In the case of a deposit of registered securities by a participant located outside the United States, including a deposit by or for the benefit of a participant accepted at a depository facility located outside the United States, the participant will not receive immediate credit in its securities account. DTC will give credit for the deposit only after DTC has screened the parties on the deposit against the OFAC list and has identified no matches. 2. Custody Service With respect to securities and other financial instruments that are deposited pursuant to DTC's Custody Service procedures, DTC will act on the instructions of the depositing participant only after DTC has screened the parties on the deposit against the OFAC list and has identified no valid matches. 2 2 DTC is already screening the registration information for securities it is holding as part of its Custody Service. 3. Withdrawal-By-Transfer Service For securities on deposit that are sought to be withdrawn pursuant to DTC's Withdrawal-By-Transfer Service, including Withdrawal-By-Transfer requests for Direct Registration, DTC will act on the instructions of the withdrawing participant only after DTC has screened the investor in whose name the securities are to be registered against the OFAC list and has identified no valid match. For each service, in the event that DTC identifies a match against the OFAC list, DTC would attempt to remove false-positive matches. For valid matches, DTC would present the matches to participants through a new Participant Terminal System function called “OFAP.” Participants would be required to review each certificate registration identified as a potential match through the “OFAP” function by comparing the certificate registration to the OFAC text information and respond with a comment for each registration by providing factual information sufficient for DTC to conclude, in its sole discretion, that the investor is or is not the person or entity listed on the OFAC list. DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 3 and the rules and regulations thereunder because it will enhance DTC's compliance with applicable laws thereby reducing risks and associated costs to DTC and its participants. 3 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A)By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/ sro.shtml)* ; or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-DTC-2005-14 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2005-14. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/ sro.shtml)* . Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at DTC's principal office and on DTC's Web site at *http://www.dtc.org/impNtc/mor/index.html* . All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submission should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2005-14 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 4 4 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6248 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52746; File No. SR-NASD-2005-106] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Regarding Fees for Closed-End Funds Listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market November 7, 2005. On August 31, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), through its subsidiary, the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change regarding fees for closed-end funds listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market. 3 Nasdaq has proposed to amend NASD Rules 4510 and 4520 to:
(i)Decrease the entry fee for listing a closed-end fund on the Nasdaq Capital Market to $5,000 (of which $1,000 is a non-refundable application fee) per fund; and
(ii)adopt a new annual fee schedule for closed-end funds on the Nasdaq Capital Market, which is identical to that of funds listed on the Nasdaq National Market. 4 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on October 3, 2005. 5 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Subsequent to the Nasdaq filing of this proposed rule, Nasdaq filed, and the Commission approved, another proposed rule change which renamed “The Nasdaq SmallCap Market” as “The Nasdaq Capital Market.” *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52489 (September 21, 2005) 70 FR 56948 (September 27, 2005). 4 Nasdaq recently adopted new listing fees for Closed-End Funds listing on the Nasdaq National Market. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52277 (August 17, 2005), 70 FR 49347 (August 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-096). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52515 (September 27, 2005), 70 FR 57638 (October 3, 2005). After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a self-regulatory organization. 6 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 15A(b)(6) of the Act 7 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 The Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 7 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 8 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASD-2005-106) be, and hereby is, approved. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6246 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52720; File No. SR-PCX-2005-120] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Remote Market Makers November 2, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 21, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The PCX proposes to amend PCX Rule 6.35 by eliminating the restriction contained in PCX Rule 6.35(h)(4) that prohibits a Remote Market Maker (“RMM”) from concurrently trading and/or quoting the same option issue as an RMM who is a Nominee of the same OTP Firm. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Additions are in italics and deletions are in brackets. Rules of the Pacific Exchange, Inc., Rule 6 Options Trading—Appointment of Market Makers Rule 6.35
(a)thru 6.35(g)—No Change
(h)If an OTP Holder or OTP Firm has two or more Nominees that are registered as Remote Market Makers, then:
(1)The number of OTPs held in the name of such Remote Market Makers may be aggregated for the purpose of determining the number of options issues eligible for primary appointment pursuant to subsection (g)(2) above;
(2)The primary appointment applies to the OTP Holder or OTP Firm, subject to the approval of the Exchange; *and*
(3)The distribution of the option issues within the primary appointments for each Remote Market Maker will be at the discretion of the OTP Holder or OTP Firm *.[* ; and
(4)At no time will a Remote Market Maker concurrently trade or quote the same option issue as a Remote Market Maker or Lead Market Maker who is a Nominee for the same OTP Holder or OTP Firm.] (i)—No Change Commentary: .01 thru .05—No Change II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose PCX Rule 6.35 governs the appointment of Market Makers. The rule change would eliminate PCX Rule 6.35(h)(4), which prohibits two or more RMMs who are Nominees of the same OTP Firm from concurrently trading options in the same class. The current restriction on RMMs that are from the same OTP Firm concurrently trading the same issues was included as part of Amendment No. 2 to PCX-2002-36, 5 (Rules of PCX Plus). This restriction grew out of early concerns over trade allocation and the possibility that an OTP Firm could unfairly game the “size pro rata” allocation method that PCX Plus utilizes. It was thought that having multiple RMMs in the same issue, quoting smaller individual markets, could somehow cause a greater contract allocation than a single RMM quoting the same aggregate size market. PCX Rule 6.76, Priority and Order Allocation Procedures, governs trade allocations for trades executed on the PCX Plus System. Specifically, PCX Rule 6.76(a)(4) outlines the Size Pro Rata Allocation. By reviewing this rule, one can see that the PCX allocation method is based strictly on the market size that Market Makers are quoting at the time of a trade. A single Market Maker quoting one size would be entitled to no more or no less than two or more Market Makers quoting the same aggregate size. Due to the fact that trade allocations are based strictly on quote size, and not the number of quoters, the Exchange believes that PCX Rule 6.76(h)(4) is obsolete and serves no purpose. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47838 (May 13, 2003), 68 FR 27129 (May 19, 2003). Some PCX OTP Firms are large businesses that have multiple Nominees that pursue separate and distinct trading strategies, and each of these Nominees may be interested in serving in an RMM capacity. Under present PCX rules, each OTP Firm is limited to allowing only one RMM to trade a particular options issue, regardless of the number of Nominees the firm may employ. By eliminating the current restriction on affiliated RMMs, these individual Nominees will be able to concurrently trade the same options issue. The Exchange believes that additional market participants will create deeper markets, allowing for better executions and better prices for all customers. In this regard, the PCX proposes to no longer prohibit multiple Nominees of an OTP Firm from concurrently trading as RMMs in the same option issue. 2. Statutory Basis For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enhance competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 7 in particular, in that it is designed to facilitate transactions in securities, to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 9 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The PCX provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 9 17 CFR 240.19-4(f)(6). The Exchange has requested that the Commission accelerate the operative date so that the proposed rule change may take effect upon filing. The Commission believes that acceleration of the operative date will permit more RMMs to trade the same options issue, which should increase liquidity in the market thereby allowing for better executions and better prices for customers. For these reasons, the Commission finds it consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to accelerate the operative date of the proposed rule change so that it may become operative immediately upon filing. 10 10 For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-PCX-2005-120 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-120. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-120 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2005. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6252 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52745; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-64] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Certain Fees With Respect to Transactions Executed Through the Intermarket Trading System November 7, 2005 Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 31, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to enter into arrangements with other national securities exchanges to pass certain fees they have collected from members for transactions executed on another exchange through the Intermarket Trading System (“ITS”). This proposal does not require changes to Phlx rule text. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Section 31 of the Act 3 requires each national securities exchange to pay the Commission a fee based on the aggregate dollar amount of certain sales of securities (“covered sales”). Rules 31 and 31T, adopted by the Commission in June 2004, 4 established procedures for the calculation and collection of Section 31 fees on such covered sales. Rule 31 requires each national securities exchange that owes Section 31 fees to submit a completed Form R31 to the Commission each month, beginning with July 2004. Rule 31T required each exchange to submit a completed Form R31 for each of the months September 2003 to June 2004, inclusive. Each national securities exchange must report its covered sales volume based on the data from a designated clearing agency, when available. The designated clearing agency for covered sales of equity securities is the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”). These covered sales are reported in Part I of Form R31, and each exchange is required to “provide in Part I only the data supplied to it by a designated clearing agency.” 5 The data supplied by NSCC for the period September 2003 through August 2004 did not accurately reflect the aggregate dollar value of the covered sales occurring on each exchange to permit reports to be made in accordance with new Rules 31 and 31T. In particular, the data NSCC reported to each national securities exchange included non-covered sales data for sales originating on one exchange and executed on another exchange through the ITS. 6 3 15 U.S.C. 78ee. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49928 (June 28, 2004), 69 FR 41060 (July 7, 2004) (“Adopting Release”). 5 17 CFR 240.31(b)(5). 6 As a result of this and other inaccuracies in the data reported by NSCC, the national securities exchanges were unable to report accurate information on Form R31, unless they made adjustments to the NSCC data based on data other than that provided by NSCC. On October 6, 2004, the Commission's Division of Market Regulation (“Division”) issued a “no-action” letter advising exchanges for whom NSCC acts as a designated clearing agency under Rule 31, that the Division staff would not recommend that the Commission take enforcement action if a national securities exchange adjusts the data provided by NSCC to accurately reflect covered sales occurring on the national securities exchange. *See* letter from Robert L.D. Colby, Deputy Director, Division, Commission to Ellen J. Neely, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”), dated October 6, 2004. Section 31 requires that national securities exchanges pay a fee based on the aggregate dollar amount of sales of securities transacted on the exchange. Given the specific language of Section 31, the Commission in the Adopting Release for Rules 31 and 31T advised that the current methodology for treating sales of securities that occur through ITS 7 was no longer appropriate and that “it would be simpler and more transparent for each covered [self-regulatory organization (“SRO”)] to report all covered sales that occur on its market.” The Commission further stated: 7 In the Adopting Release, the Commission described the current methodology: “SRO A sends an ITS commitment to a member of SRO B to sell a security, and the commitment is executed on SRO B. Under existing arrangements, SRO A pays the Section 31 fee arising from this trade and passes the fee to its member that initiated the trade. * * *[T]he SROs devised this system because SRO B does not have the ability to require members of SRO A to reimburse it for the cost of its Section 31 fees.” Adopting Release, 69 FR at 41067. The Commission acknowledges that a covered SRO on which a covered sale occurs as a result of an incoming ITS order may not be able to collect funds to pay the Section 31 fee from one of its own members. However, Section 31 does not address the manner or extent to which covered SROs may seek to recover the amounts that they pay pursuant to Section 31 from their members. Covered SROs may wish to devise new arrangements for passing fees between themselves so that the funds are collected from the covered SRO that originated the ITS order. 8 8 *Id.* The Commission further noted that any such arrangements devised by the SROs would have to be established pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder. A subcommittee of the ITS Operating Committee 9 (“Subcommittee”) has had discussions in order to devise new arrangements for passing fees between the ITS participants that
(1)were collected from their members for the months of September 2003 through August 2004; and
(2)are being collected from their members beginning in September 2004 and continuing. This proposed rule change is being submitted by the Phlx with the understanding that the other exchanges participating in the proposed arrangement devised by the subcommittee will be submitting substantially similar rule change proposals. 10 9 The ITS participants are American Stock Exchange LLC, Boston Stock Exchange (“BSE”), Chicago Board Options Exchange, CHX, National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”), National Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), Pacific Exchange, and Phlx. 10 NASD has determined not to participate in the arrangement for passing fees between exchanges although they participated in many of the conference calls regarding the proposed arrangement. Pursuant to the new arrangement being proposed, each ITS participant exchange determines whether it has received and executed more in dollar value of covered sales than it has originated and sent to each other ITS participant exchange. For example, for the historical period, September 2003 through August 2004, SRO A sent ITS commitments for covered sales whose dollar value was $150 million to SRO B for execution. SRO A collected fees from its members to fund its Section 31 obligation for those covered sales executed on SRO B. SRO B, as the executing market center, is obligated to pay the Section 31 fee to the SEC. During the same period, SRO B sent ITS commitments for covered sales whose dollar value was $210 million to SRO A. SRO B collected fees from its members for those covered sales executed on SRO A. SRO A, as the executing market center, is obligated to pay the Section 31 fee to the SEC. Since SRO A executed a greater dollar value of covered sales from SRO B than it sent to SRO B, the proposed arrangement requires SRO A to determine the amount of the fees collected by SRO B from its members based on the aggregate dollar value of covered sales from SRO B and executed on SRO A through ITS commitments. When invoicing SRO B, SRO A will deduct the amount of the fee it owes to SRO B ( *i.e.* , the fee amount based on SRO A's $210 million in aggregate covered sales less the fee amount based on SRO B's $150 million in aggregate covered sales) and will invoice only for the difference of $60 million. Once the fees have been invoiced and paid for the historical period, the ITS participant exchanges plan to use the same arrangement for the period beginning September 2004 and continuing. It is anticipated that the invoicing process will occur twice yearly to coincide with the March 15 and September 30 payment schedule for Section 31 fees set forth in the Act. To implement this proposed arrangement, an ITS participant exchange will require access to the aggregate dollar value of buy and sell transactions occurring through ITS. Under the proposed arrangement for fees collected for the months of September 2003 through August 2004, an ITS participant exchange may choose to use data obtained from the Inter-market Surveillance Information System (“ISIS”) or data that provides comparable information that includes aggregate dollar value of ITS transactions. 11 The ISIS data is sorted by originating market center ( *i.e.* , the sender of an ITS commitment) and receiving market center ( *i.e.* , the market center that executes the ITS commitment). Using this data, each ITS participant exchange can determine on a monthly basis the dollar value of all executed commitments sent to and received from another ITS participant exchange. 11 The NYSE has made available to the ITS participants spreadsheets for each month in the period using the ISIS data. At its meeting on February 23, 2005, the Subcommittee asked the Securities Industry Automation Corporation (“SIAC”) to determine the time and expense involved for SIAC to use the ITS database that it maintains to provide reports of the aggregate dollar value of buy and sell transactions occurring through ITS to the ITS participants. On March 15, 2005, representatives of the Subcommittee authorized SIAC to develop new reports. SIAC is in the process of developing these reports and expects to complete testing by August 31. 2005. Once SIAC can provide this data, it will no longer be necessary for ISIS data to be used. The new reports provided by SIAC will be used by ITS participants in connection with determining which ITS participant exchange will pay the fee for transactions occurring through ITS and which ITS participant exchange has collected the fee from its members. The Phlx believes that the proposed arrangement is a fair and efficient means for passing fees collected at one ITS participant exchange based upon executions of covered sales occurring at another ITS participant exchange. The Phlx acknowledges that the legal duty to report and pay the Section 31 fee remains with the ITS participant on which the sale was in fact transacted. 2. Statutory Basis This proposal would establish a process for SROs to enter into arrangements to pass fees they have collected from members for transactions executed on another SRO through ITS. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 12 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 13 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 14 which requires that the rules of an exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. 12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2005-64 on the subject line. Paper comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-64. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-64 and should be submitted on or before December 5, 2005. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 15 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 16 which requires that the rules of an exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. National securities exchanges obtain funds to pay their Section 31 fees to the Commission by charging fees to broker-dealers who generate the covered sales on which Section 31 fees are based. An exchange can obtain most of these funds by imposing a fee on one of its members whenever the member is on the sell side of a transaction. However, when the exchange accepts an ITS commitment to buy, the ultimate seller is a party on another market. The exchange lacks the ability to pass a fee to that seller directly, because the seller may not be a member of the exchange. Under the proposed arrangement, which the Commission understands will be adopted by each of the ITS participant exchanges, 17 the exchange that routed the ITS commitment away will continue to collect a fee from the broker-dealer that placed the sell order. Then, with respect to each ITS participant exchange, the exchange will determine whether it is a net sender or net receiver of ITS trades and send fees to or accept fees from each other exchange accordingly. The Commission believes this is an equitable manner for the exchanges to obtain funds to pay their Section 31 fees on covered sales resulting from ITS trades. 15 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 17 *See* letter from George W. Mann, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, BSE, and Chairman, Subcommittee, to Michael Gaw, Assistant Director, Division, Commission, dated September 29, 2005. Under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 18 the Commission may not approve any proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof, unless the Commission finds good cause for so doing. The Commission hereby finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publishing notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . In this case, the Commission does not believe a comment period is necessary because all of the parties affected by the proposed fee—the other ITS participant exchanges—have already consented to and will adopt the same fee arrangement. 19 18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 19 *See supra* note 17. For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds good cause to accelerate approval of the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. 20 20 *Id.* V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 21 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2005-64) is hereby approved on an accelerated basis. 21 *Id.* For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6247 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10224] California Disaster # CA-00021 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL)declaration for the State of California, dated 10/27/2005. *Incident:* Lake Tahoe Sewage Spill. *Incident Period:* 07/19/2005. *Effective Date:* 10/27/2005. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/27/2006. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration on 10/27/2005, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Placer Contiguous Counties: California El Dorado, Nevada, Sacramento, Sutter, Yuba. Nevada Carson City, Douglas, Washoe. The Interest Rate is: 4.000. The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 102240. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California and Nevada. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Dated: October 27, 2005. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator. [FR Doc. 05-22535 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 8
3 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 15 USC 78
  • 17 CFR 240.19-4(f)(6)
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
U.S.C.§ 78q–1
U.S.C.§ 78ee
C.F.R.§ 240.31
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Cite15 USC 78
Cite17 CFR 240.19-4(f)(6)
Cites 11Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.